Dear Congressmen,
I want to
congratulate you on performing the first miracle in many years by obtaining the
attention of the President of the
united States of America to
the fact that he needs a Declaration of War before he becomes the
Commander-in-Chief. For the first time since World War II Congressmen are
insisting that President George W. Bush does indeed need a Declaration of War
from Congress before proceeding with an attack
upon Iraq or any
other nation on earth. But the question becomes, “Does the Declaration of
War by Congress render ‘our cause’ legal in
the Kingdom of
Heaven established upon the Earth by Christ
Jesus?” Is it good enough for Congress to declare war
on Iraq or must
the President and representatives really “Make the Case for war
against
Iraq” before Congress and man and God? To
answer this question we need to turn to the actual laws of
the Kingdom of
Heaven on Earth.
1. WHAT RIGHTS
ACQUIRE BY CONQUEST?
1.1 What Power
Does an Unlawful Conquest Give?
To answer this
question, if it is not self evident, we turn again to John Locke. Presuming that
we declare an unjust war upon
Iraq
and win the war, let us determine what right we obtain thereby:
“That the
Aggressor, who puts himself into the State of War with another, and unjustly
invades another Man's Right, can, by such an unjust War, never come to have a
right over the Conquered, will be easily agreed by all Men, who will not think,
that Robbers and Pyrates have a Right of Empire over
whomsoever they have Force enough to master, or that Men are bound by Promises,
which unlawful Force extorts from them."
Therefore we
see that victory over
Iraq
would be meaningless and expensive if we do not have a just right against them.
1.2 What Power
Does a Lawful Conquest Give?
But let’s
now turn to the established Law of the
Kingdom
of Heaven on Earth to see what we
obtain if indeed ‘our cause’ is just
against
Iraq:
"Let us
see next what Power a lawful Conqueror has over the Subdued: And that I say is purely despotical. He has an absolute Power over the Lives of
those, who by an unjust War have forfeited them; but not over the Lives or
Fortunes of those, who ingaged not
in the War, nor over the Possessions even of those, who were actually
engaged in it."(387)
"Secondly,
I say then the Conqueror gets no Power but only over those, who have actually
assisted, concurr'd, or consented to that unjust
Force, that is used against him.
For the People having given to their Governours
no Power to do an unjust thing, such as is to make an unjust War, (for they
never had such a power in themselves:) They ought not to be charged, as guilty
of the Violence and Unjustice, that is committed in an
Unjust War, any farther, than they actually abet it,...Conquerours, 'tis true, seldom trouble themselves to make
the distinction, but they willingly permit the Confusion of War to sweep all
together."(388)
Now we have a
further expansion of Locke in Rousseau’s Social
Contract:
“The
foreigner – whether he is a king, a private person or a whole people
– who robs, kills or detains the subjects of another prince without first
declaring war against that prince, is not an enemy but a brigand. Even
in the midst of war, a just prince, seizing what he can of public
property in the enemy’s territory, nevertheless respects the
persons and possessions of private individuals; he respects the principles on
which his own rights are based. Since the aim of war is to subdue a hostile
state, a combatant has the right to kill the defenders of that state while they
are armed; but as soon as they lay down their arms and surrender, they cease to
be either enemies or instruments of the enemy; they become simple men once more,
and no one has any longer the right to take their lives. It is sometimes
possible to destroy a state without killing a single one of its members, and
war give no right to inflict any more destruction than
is necessary for victory.”
“The
right of conquest has no other foundation than the law of the strongest. And if
war gives the conqueror no right to massacre a conquered people, no such right
can be invoked to justify their enslavement. Men have the right to kill their
enemies only when they cannot enslave them, so the right of enslaving cannot be
derived from the right to kill. It would therefore be an iniquitous barter to
make the vanquished purchase with their liberty the life over which the victor
has no legitimate claim. An argument basing the right over life and death on the
right to enslave, and the right to enslave on the right over life and death, is
an argument trapped in a vicious circle.”(57) (emphasis added)
Now I hope it
not in the design of President Bush and his administration to consider the oil
and resources of Iraq as a bounty to such a war as he contemplates, for it is
clear, we as a people do not acquire a right to those things by defending
ourselves from them in a just and victorious war. Unfortunately, there is
evidence that there has been a design to not only shape the middle-east but to
shape the rest of the whole world by the Bush- Cheney-Wolfowitz team of the 1980s and
1990s:
“The
absence of a broadly agreed-upon new grand strategy creates several problems.
Uncertainty tends to take away the initiative and place the
United
States in a reactive mode. However,
improvisation and a reactive attitude can squander a
once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Given its power position in the world,
the United
States is in a position to shape the future to
enhance the prospects for freedom, prosperity, and peace. But it cannot succeed
in shaping the post Cold War world unless it know what
shape it wants the world to take and the strategy and the will to make it
happen.”
“A global
leadership role serves
U.S.
economic interests. For example, it can facilitate American exports, as in
recent U.S.
contracts with Saudi
Arabia for the sale of aircraft and the
modernization of Saudi telecommunications systems. As we have seen, the costs of
other stances the United
States might take to the world can ultimately
be higher. Rather than undermining domestic prosperity, such a role can in fact
facilitate it. The economic benefits of
U.S. leadership have not been articulated,
either analytically or in the statements made to the public.”(39)
A position of
superior power in the world by any nation does not establish a right to a
“grand strategy” to “enhance prospects for freedom, prosperity
and peace.” All nations must live in a reactive mode rather than an
initiative, creative, shaping role. These are words of a lawless band of
manipulators and tyrants.
Notice that Locke is true to the Laws of
the Kingdom
of Heaven Christ established upon
Earth pointing out that people cannot delegate to others or their
representatives more power then they hold in themselves. Therefore, since any
person does not have a power to invade the rights of another, they cannot
delegate that to their representatives. But the result is that this same person
cannot be held accountable for the acts of their representatives to do unlawful
acts unless they themselves engage in them.
1.3 The Summary
of Power Obtained by Lawful Conquest:
Now if that is
not clear let us hear again from the established Laws of the
Kingdom
of Heaven on Earth from
Christ’s foremost disciple of the said principles, John Locke:
"The short
of the Case in Conquest is this, The Conqueror, if he have a just
Cause, has a despotical Right over the
Persons of all, that actually aided, and concurred in the War against him, and
Right to make up his Damage and Cost out of their Labour and Estates, so he injure not the Right of any
other. Over the rest of the People,
if there were any that consented not to the War, and over the Children of the
Captives themselves, or the Possessions of either, he has no Power; and so can
have, by vertue of 'Conquest, no lawful Title himself
to Dominion over them, or derive it to his Posterity; but is an Aggressor, if he
attempts upon their Properties, and thereby puts himself in a state of War
against them, and has no better a Right of Principality, he, nor any
of his Successors, than Hingar, or Hubba, the Danes had here in England;..."(emphasis added)
Therefore
‘our cause’ against Iraq must be so strong that we are willing to
fight and conquer them and pay the total cost with the help obtained only from
the confiscation of that which belonged to the violators of the laws of the
Kingdom of Heaven just mentioned, namely, Saddam Hussein and the military
captives and abettors. But it is clear we have no right to rule the land, either
directly or indirectly, and that we have no right to seize the property or
resources of the land for ourselves or others.
Now it is clear
that any discussion related to the use of the oil of
Iraq
as a tool on the market of the world as a weapon that must be seized is out of
the question and is itself a design against the rights
of Iraq. The
only cause we can establish against
Iraq is that it is a direct threat to us or our
allies in its proposed or initiated plans against our rights. Now, this brings
us to other questions concerning the rights of
Iraq versus the rights of the
“united
States” and their “allies.”
2. THE RIGHTS OF
IRAQ
AND AMERICA AND
THE REST OF THE WORLD:
Let us now
consider the rights of nations and how they are derived. Again we turn to the
inexorable and inescapable laws of the
Kingdom
of Heaven on Earth established upon
the reason and logic of all diligent, inquiring men. We again recall the
fundamentals of John Locke, disciple of Christ, to develop the principles of
civil government:
2.1 The State
of
Nature:
"To
understand political Power, right, and derive it from its Original, we must
consider, what State all Men are naturally in, and that is, a State of perfect
Freedom to order their Actions, and dispose of their Possessions, and Persons as
they think fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without asking leave, or
depending upon the Will of any other Man."(269)
2.2 The Law of
Nature:
"The State
of Nature has
a Law of Nature to govern it,...that being all equal
and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life,
Health, Liberty, or
Possessions."(271)
2.3 All Men Are
the Property of God:
"For Men
being all the Workmanship of one Omnipotent, and infinitely wise Maker: All the
Servants of one Sovereign Master, sent into the World by his order, and about
his Business, they are his Property, whose Workmanship they are, made to last
during his, not one anothers
pleasure:..."(271)
2.4 Right of
Self Preservation and Preservation of All
Mankind:
"Every one
as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his Station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own Preservation
comes not in Competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of
Mankind, and may not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or
impair the life, or what tends to the Preservation of the Life, the Liberty,
Health, Limb or Goods of another."(271)
Now that we are
armed with a few of the principles of civil government
established
By the
Disciples of Christ Jesus we may be able to discern the elements that President
Bush must establish to “make his case” for war against
Iraq.
3. ELEMENTS OF THE
CASE FOR WAR AGAINST
IRAQ:
What have we
learned of the Laws of Nations established by the Disciples of Christ? We
learned that the right to self preservation is to all men including those of
Iraq.
We must now consider what action
Iraq has taken that evidences a planned attack
upon the rights of others:
3.1 Resistance
of
Iraq
to Disarm upon command of President Bush:
We learn that
the request of President George W. Bush that
Iraq
“disarm” is itself an attack upon the natural and political right of
self protection of the sovereign nation of
Iraq. The President’s request to
“disarm” does not establish a right of the uS to attack
Iraq, but becomes a right
of Iraq to
attack the uS. President Bush has thereby declared his
intention of taking away what tends to the Preservation of Iraq and replacing
their own executive, Saddam Hussein, and to replace the “regime”
with one or President Bush’s liking.
3.2 The
Resistance of
Iraq
to Disarm upon the request of the United Nations:
Any request or
demand for
Iraq
to “disarm” is also an act of removing their means of self
preservation which is a right of all sovereign nations. Since no man has the
right to disarm another he cannot delegate that to his government. The United
Nations does not even have the authority that is delegated by the people to
their own sovereign nations. No legislative body can delegate its power to the
United Nations, therefore, this body is totally without
the will of any group other than those who meet there. The United Nations is a
superior threat to the sovereign power of the laws of Nations then Saddam
Hussein ever thought of becoming.
3.3 The
Possession of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” by
Iraq:
We know beyond
question that the mere possession of “weapons of mass destruction”
is not a cause for attack. If that were true we would be busy indeed. We would
be at war with powers much greater than Saddam Hussein would we not? Why single
out
Iraq
for the war upon “weapons of mass destruction?” It is clear t that
President Bush and his administration consider biological weapons to be
“weapons of mass destruction.” We know that atomic weapons are also
considered to be “weapons of mass destruction.” However, it follows
that one cannot add atomic weapons to other weapons of mass destruction and now
have an argument. If the possession of weapons of mass destruction is a right of
sovereign nations in their defense then this cannot become an act to justify war
when it is merely increased beyond biological to the level of nuclear mass
destruction.
3.4 The
Violation of a Peace Treaty by
Iraq:
It is claimed
that
Iraq
has violated the terms of peace won after the “Gulf War.” Who knows
what the terms were? The uS
never declared a war upon
Iraq and the fighting that is called the
“Gulf War” was therefore illegal in
America. If there was never a declared war, how
could there be terms of peace? We have been in a constant peace time
manipulation of this nation for a considerable number of years. Even recently we
bombed portions of
Iraq without much notice by the citizens of
the uS or their
representatives. This situation is abominable under the laws of
the Kingdom of
Heaven.
3.5
Iraq
is a Threat to Our “Friends and Allies.”
Who are our
“Friends and Allies” in the immediate area? This is no mystery! We
have only one friend and ally in all of the middle-east. That is the
questionable state of
Israel.
Our other so-called “Friends and Allies” have already told us that
we may not conduct this war against
Iraq from their
lands. Saudi
Arabia, our big buddy in the oil trade, has
made it clear we are not going to use their land for such an action. Then it is
pretty clear that
Iraq is not perceived as a threat to their
neighbors of Saudi
Arabia and others in the immediate area. Many
of our European “Friends and Allies” have charged that the Bush
administration has not proved any threat from
Iraq to them? It becomes clear that the only
threat that Iraq
poses to the middle-east is to the modern “state
of
Israel.” It is no secret or mystery again
that the Arab world is mostly Muslim and that the modern “state of
Israel” is mostly Jewish and created with the declared intent to establish
a homeland for the Jews. We also know that the Palestinians are mostly Muslims
and have populated the area since about 600AD. There are natural associations
between the Palestinians and other Arabic nations in the surrounding area. This
brings us to very relevant question. Was the modern “state of
Israel” created legally or is it founded upon sand that is contributing
heavily to the destruction of the stability in the middle-east. And secondly,
what is the connection of the uS to this modern “state
of Israel”
and is that too causing the imbalance? Let us therefore turn to the ways in
which nations are formed under the laws of the
Kingdom of Heaven
established upon Earth by John Locke and many others:
4. THE CREATION
& FOUNDATION OF THE MODERN “STATE OF
ISRAEL:”
4.1 The
Creation of Governments:
"If Man in
the State of
Nature be so
free, as has been said; if he be absolute Lord of his own Person and
Possessions, equal to the greatest and subject to no Body, why will he part with
his Freedom? Why will he give up
this Empire, and subject himself to the Dominion and Control of any other
Power? To which 'tis obvious to
answer, that though in the State of Nature he hath such a Right, yet the
Enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of
others. For all being Kings as much
as he, every Man his Equal and the greater Part no strict observers of Equity
and Justice, the enjoyment of the Property he has in this State, is very unsafe,
very unsecure.
This makes him willing to quit this Condition, which however free, is
full of Fears and continual Dangers:
And 'tis not without Reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to joyn in Society with others, who are already united, or have
a Mind to unite, for the mutual Preservation of their Lives, Liberties and
Estates, which I call by the general Name, Property."(350)
4.2 The Sole
Purpose of Political Society and Civil
Government:
"The great
and chief End therefore, of Mens uniting into
Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of
their Property. To which in the
State of
Nature there
are many things wanting."(350-351)
4.3
One Way Only To Enter
into Political Society:
"The only
Way whereby any one devests himself of his natureal Liberty, and puts on the Bonds of Civil Society is
by agreeing with other Men to joyn and unite into a
Community, for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable Living one amoungst another, in a secure Enjoyment of their
Properties,....When any number o Men have so consented to make one Community or
Government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one Body politick,
wherein the Majority have a Right to act and conclude the
rest."(330-331)
Then how do
legitimate governments come into being? They exist by consent of the governed
only. Any other manner of coming about is against the sole purpose of government
which is the protection of the property of every citizen consisting of the
citizens’ life, liberty and possessions. The question arises, how was the
modern state of
Israel
established and was that by the laws of the
Kingdom of God on
Earth? The Palestinian Arabs have no part in the government
of Israel for
they did not consent to it, it was forced upon them
by Britain. Was
the solution to force all Palestinians out of all the area the Jews lay old testament claim to? Not under the Christian
principles that we Christians know to live under!
4.4 Was the
Creation of the Modern “State of
Israel”
Lawful?
The Israelite
tribes settled in
Palestine about
2000 B.C. They gradually extended their rule over it until they set up a Kingdom
under Saul. However they were carried into slavery and dominated by the great
empires of Assyria,
Babylon, Persia
and Rome.
“In the
seventh century A.D. the Arabs, who had accepted the teachings of Mohammed,
overran the Holy Land. From that
time, except for comparatively short periods,
Palestine was under the rule of a succession of peoples
of the Mohammedan faith. The last of these, the Ottoman Turks, took over
the Holy Land in the sixteenth century and held it until
late in World War I. By now
Palestine was largely Arab in population; Jews and
Christian formed small minority groups. The Holy Land had
become, for the most part, a dreary waste; swamps and deserts had replaced the
fertile lands of ancient times.
“World
War I broke out in 1914. Three years later the British invaded
Palestine and
captured most of it. British troops occupied the whole land after the end of the
war.
“In
November 1917, Lord Balfour, the British foreign secretary, had announced that
“His Majesty’s Government view with favor
the establishment in
Palestine of a
national home for the Jewish people.” He had promised
that Britain
would do all it could to bring this about. The Balfour Declaration, as it was
called, was endorsed by the victorious Allies. In 1920 the League of
Nations gave
Britain a mandate over
Palestine in order to carry out the policy announced in
the declaration.
“The
British set up a civil government in
Palestine with
Sir Herbert Samuel, a Jewish statesman, as the first high commissioner. The Jews
now set to work earnestly to build up a Jewish homeland. They had begun that
task some forty years before. Under the inspiration of a colonizing movement
known as Zionism, they had set up a number of colonies for Jewish immigrants in
the Holy Land.”
In 1949 the
British announced that they were going to give up their mandate over
Palestine after
several attempts by the Palestinian Arabs to slow the expansion of the Jewish
settlements there. The British attempted to divide
Palestine into an Arab section and a Jewish section
without success. Great numbers of Jews were entering
Palestine at the end of World War II in defiance of the
British limit on growth.
“At the
same time Jewish underground groups attacked the British, whom they denounced as
invaders. At last, in April 1947,
Britain
turned the Palestine problem over to
the United Nations (UN). In November of that year the UN General Assembly voted
in favor of dividing up the country between the Jews and Arabs.
“On
May 15,
1948, the British formally gave up their mandate
over Palestine and a provisional
Jewish government proclaimed the new
republic of
Israel.” (6676)
There has been
a long chain of bloody boundary movement between Arab occupied lands and Jewish
occupied lands ever since. But what is the critical element we have witnessed?
Is it not the ill obtained Homeland of the modern state of
“Israel”
to begin with? Did the British ever establish a right to develop such a
“Balfour Declaration?” What right did the British acquire over the
Arab occupants to seize their lands and possessions and establish their own
rights much less the right of Jews over the area? Is the whole world to forget
2000 years of the advance of the Christian principles of Civil Government of
the Kingdom of
Heaven on Earth so that the British or the UN can
establish a homeland for the Jews? Certainly not!
4.5 No Right
Acquired By
Britain,
the UN or
Israel:
The British had
a right during World War I to enter and defeat
Palestine
if Palestine was a threat to
them. Britain
also had a right to reimburse their debt by whatever was available from the
state or public properties. But
Britain never obtained a right to set up their own government in
Palestine much less the government
of Israel.
5. THE RELATIONSHIP
OF CHRIST AND CHRISTIANS TO THE TROUBLE IN THE MIDDLE-EAST AND
BEYOND:
Let me finish
by making a final observation about the role of Christian America in the
solution to our current problems and our future problems regarding Muslims and
Jews and those of other religions.
What has
occurred over and over in history is the conflict of a right to land and
property, when many over the years have an overlapping claim. Christ through his
servants and disciples have established rules of the establishment of true
governments regardless of prior claims. But these rules come only from a knowledge of what Christ did in the
world.
Christ Jesus
came to earth and took into his body all property in the cosmos to the ends of
the Galaxies and all men that will ever be born. Once he had all things in his
body he died, wherein all things died. Then he was resurrected by the power of
God, wherein all things were resurrected with him. Forty days later he ascended
into heaven taking all things in the cosmos including the earth stars and all
creatures into the
Kingdom
of Heaven with him, reconciling all
things back unto God.
Now with that,
he established the
Kingdom
of God or Heaven on Earth, for that
is where we are at this very moment. We are on Earth but we are also in Christ
in the Heavenly Places. Men through the ages have realized this and set about to
establish the rules and laws of how redeemed man should live with one another as
equals with equal access to salvation and eternal life to be possessed in their
lives upon earth.
This act of the
son of God, Christ Jesus, has superceded all other statements and promises of
the Holy Bible. For all the promises of God are kept and fulfilled in the person
and operations of Christ Jesus. There is no other salvation for all men,
including the Jew, outside of Christ Jesus. The New Israel is not in the desert
or the fertile valley but in Christ Jesus, the possessor of the galaxies. The
citizens of
Israel,
or the true Jews, are all those that enter the
Kingdom of Heaven
through the door that Christ opened in his Death, Resurrection and
Ascension.
Christians, and
the principles of Christian Civil Government they have established, are the only
answer to the Israeli, Arab conflict. And this conflict cannot be reconciled by
mere joining ranks with the lost house of modern day
“Israel,”
but by applying the enduring Christian principles that Christians themselves
have developed to live with one another. Christians have warred with themselves
to develop these principles, should we not share and live by these principles
with those not so fortunate? We cannot abandon our own history in Christian
American to follow the ancient ways of self destruction based upon old and
abolished principles.
All the answers
to our present “war on terrorism” and “crusade against
Islam” is solved by our own insistence upon the exercise of self
discipline and following of the principles of civil government and the
inescapable reason and revelation of the power of Christ Jesus. May God in
Christ empower you to resolve our present problems, for it is God’s will
that Christians prevail and establish the
Kingdom
of Heaven on Earth for all men. We
have been given the keys and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
them.
Sincerely,
Ronald F.
Avery